Surely biosolids go first
I wonder if there is a mistake in the reporting of the proposed extension of the sewage treatment system by introducing a disinfection component earlier than planned. The article suggests that annual operating costs will increase by $500,000 due to the cost of transporting the eloquently-named biosolids out of the district, until a suitable alternative use or disposal here is settled on.
I would have thought that disinfection would occur after the removal of biosolids and therefore not add to that cost.
I also suggest, somewhat flippantly, that anyone objecting to any suggested changes, or perceived lack of progress, or for whatever reason, can institute a meaningful protest by refusing to use their facilities for a period of their choice. Gives withholding a whole new nuance.
I certainly hope we will end up using that disinfection stuff advertised on TV which gets rid of 99 percent of evil greeblies. Personally I suspect a surreptitious attempt by those holding the “(flushing) levers of power” to implement Agenda 21, which most probably has biosolids among its constituents . . .